Re: Does the Electron Neutrino Have Mass and Charge?

From: kenseto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 07/03/04 

Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 10:56:40 -0400

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cc3r6v$np1$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> kenseto wrote:
> > "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
> > news:cc3bli$lhl$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> >
> >>kenseto wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
> >
> > message
> >
> >
> > Probability amplitudes are math operations.
>
> Err, no. They are not math "operations". This is a *term*, not
> an operation (and, IMO, a physical one, not a mathematical one,
> but that is irrelevant here).
>
> You said above that one has to have a physical interpretation of the
> math. So, again, what is the interpretation of MM for the *math*
> of probability amplitudes?

So how is QM interprets probability amplitudes?
>
>
>
> > It describe the probable behavior
> > of the physical processes for a group of particles in the E-Matrix..
>
> How does MM explain that one has to add the probabiliy *amplitudes*,
> not the probabilities?

Because adding the probability amplitudes will give the correct answer.

>Again, this is a question about how MM
> *interprets* the math - something which physical theories should do,
> according to you yourself above.

MM interprets the math correctly. In addition, the MM model of the universe
will
give rise to a correct theory of gravity and unite gravity with the
 electromagnetic and nuclear forces.
>

>
> >>>and physical space.
> >>
> >>What is "physical space", and how does it differ from non-physical
space?
> >
> >
> > Remember you said in another thread that space is stuff?
>
> No, I said that space is the "stuff" etc.
>
> I included the quotation marks, and explained that I used them to denote
> that I simply use the word "stuff" here because I couldn't think of
> a better one in that moment. I did *not* say that space is stuff, and
> I pointed that correction out repeatedly.

So stuff is not physical???? Then what is stuff?
>
> Why do you continue to misrepresent what I said?

I didn't misinterpret you. You want to describe space as stuff and this
stuff is capable of carrying galaxies along as it expands. At the same
time you want to avoid the implication that space is a physical medium
so that you can claim that this stuff does not violate the SR assertion that
there is no ether occupying space.
>
>
> > Well, stuff is physical.
>
> Since both "stuff" and "physical" are undefined buzz words here,
> this statement is rather meaningless.

ROTFLOL....Everytime you run into difficulty with a certain word
you said that it is a meaningless buzz word.
>
>
> > The E-Matrix is physical.
>
> Why?

The E-Matrix is composed of material E-Strings.
>
>
> > Einstein refer to space as empty space.
>
> Not only.
>
>
> > That's not physical.
>
> Why not?

Empty is not physical.
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>decription the real processes involved..
> >>>>
> >>>>How do you know?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Its predicts agree with all experiments and observations.
> >>
> >>You yourself have admitted several times now that you can't make
> >>(many) quantitative predictions - and the few examples you gave in this
> >>thread (e.g. about scattering between beams of electron and neutrinos
> >>moving in the opposite direction) have so far not been tested (AFAIK),
> >>so you can't know if this predictions agrees with the observation.
> >
> >
> > I admit no such thing.
>
> *sigh* Do I have to use Google again to feed your own words to you,
> and will you then again refuse to admit what you yourself plainly
> said?
>
>
> > I said that MM give the same predictions as QFT
> > because MM math is the same as QFT math.
>
> Well, the predictions of QFT for electron-neutrino scattering are
> different from the ones of MM for that scattering, so obviously
> there has to be something wrong with this statement...

Nothing's wrong with the statement. MM go a little further by
adding a term in the equation that describes the effect of the
direction of motion of the beams on the scattering cross section.
That's all.
>
>
>
> >>OTOH, the predictions of QFT (which does *not* say that the scattering
> >>between electrons and neutrinos should be highest when they move in
> >>the opposite directions, BTW) for electron-neutrino scattering *have*
> >>been checked - and agree with the observations. Try looking at
> >>SuperKamiokande, for starters.
> >
> >
> > But did they do the experiment with the electrons and neutrinos moving
in
> > the opposite directions? The answer is no.
>
> Irrelevant here. The point is that QFT predicts different things for
> the electron-neutrino scattering than MM, so your claim above that
> MM gives the same predictions as QFT is bogus.

No the MM equation includes an extra term that describes the effect of the
direction of motion of the beams on the scattering cross section.
That's all.

>
>
>
> >>>
> >>>NO...he admitted that.
> >>
> >>Quote, pleae.
> >
> >
> > Look up Feymann's book QED. He said that the Newtonian thoery
> > do not have a physical mechanism
>
> Does Feynman quote Newton saying that his theory is not a physical
> explanation?

No Feynman said that Newton's theory doesn't have a mechanism for gravity.

>Otherwise this is irrelevant, since you claimed
> above that Newton himself admitted that his theory of gravity
> is not a physical explanation.

Newton himself admitted that. I read that somewhere.
>
>
>
> >>>>What *is* a "physical explanation", in your opinion?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>MM is a physical explanation.
> >>
> >>This is an example. Please give a general definition of the term
> >>"physical explanation".
> >
> >
> > Physical explanation is based on the physical model of a theory.
>
> You replace one buzz-word with another. Please give a general definition
> of the term "physical model".

ROTFLOL....another term you classified as buzz word. I am not going
to waste my time explaining it to you . You look it up.
>
> [snip]

Ken Seto

Quantcast